President Trump announced on Truth Social that he planned to meet with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought “to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent.” The public declaration put a senior administration official known for his leadership role in Project 2025 at the center of a looming battle over the structure and funding of federal programs.

Vought, a prominent architect of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint that recommends consolidations, eliminations and major policy shifts across the federal government — has warned privately and publicly that the White House could move aggressively to pare agency budgets, restructure programs and remove personnel. On Wednesday, administration officials signaled the possibility of sharply reduced funding for infrastructure and energy projects and, according to aides familiar with the exchanges, threatened “mass firings” as the impasse over temporary funding drags on.

The administration’s push collides with the constitutional and statutory role of Congress as the power of the purse. Budget specialists and former agency officials note that while the president can propose cuts and direct OMB to prioritize certain activities, appropriations and the elimination of agencies require legislative action. Legal constraints — including the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act — and civil-service protections limit the executive branch’s unilateral options, particularly against career employees. Any attempt to dismiss large numbers of civil servants or to divert congressionally authorized funds would almost certainly prompt court challenges and congressional oversight.

The political arithmetic in the Senate compounds the uncertainty. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told POLITICO that he needs to see a “critical mass” of Democrats back the House-passed funding bill before he will accept components of the measure tied to enhanced tax credits, underscoring that Republican leaders lack a straightforward path to passage without some bipartisan support. Thune said he is betting that the pain of a continuing shutdown will flip a number of vulnerable Senate Democrats, a calculation that will be tested as federal workers face furloughs and grant recipients confront halted reimbursements.

Democrats and advocacy groups reacted with alarm, portraying the meeting as an effort to impose a sweeping ideological agenda through administrative means. “The Constitution vests the power of the purse in Congress,” said a senior Democratic aide. “Using executive actions to cannibalize programs that communities rely on would be a partisan power grab with real-world consequences.” State and local officials across political lines have warned that interruptions to federal awards and approvals would slow highway and transit work, delay energy permitting and reverberate through supply chains.

Administration officials counter that the effort is an effort to reduce waste and realign federal priorities, and they point to Project 2025 as a policy roadmap rather than a prescriptive order. For now, the immediate question is procedural: whether the White House will attempt near-term administrative cuts during a funding lapse, and whether Congress will move to reconcile competing bills before programmatic damage becomes irreversible. Legal challenges, committee investigations and an intensifying fight over votes in a narrowly divided Senate seem likely, setting the stage for a constitutional confrontation over who controls the future of the federal bureaucracy.